By Louise Forde

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) establishes minimum standards for the treatment of children in a wide range of areas, including setting out rights to which children in conflict with the law are entitled. Ensuring that children’s rights are respected in the youth justice system has received significant attention at international level, by both the UN and the Council of Europe, and there are now a series of standards and guidelines setting out the rights to which children are entitled (Lynch and Liefaard, 2020). In addition to Articles 37 and 40 of the UNCRC, the following are in place: • the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has produced two General Comments (General Comment No. 24 has recently replaced General Comment No. 10) on how children’s UNCRC rights should be interpreted and applied in practice • the Beijing Rules, the Havana Rules and the Riyadh Guidelines provide further guidance on the implementation of children’s rights in the administration of youth justice, in situations where children are deprived of their liberty, and in relation to the prevention of offending by children • the Council of Europe has developed standards and guidelines on child-friendly justice and on the implementation of sanctions and measures in the youth justice system • the European Convention on Human Rights incorporates a number of rights which are relevant to children in contact with the justice system. The United Kingdom has signed and ratified the UNCRC, and thus, under Article 4 of the UNCRC, it has a legal obligation to take ‘all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures’ to implement children’s rights under the Convention. While Convention rights are not directly applicable in national law unless they are incorporated (see further Kilkelly, Lundy and Byrne, 2021; Lundy, Kilkelly and Byrne, 2013), in signing and ratifying the UNCRC, States Parties undertake binding legal obligations under international law. Furthermore, states’ progress in implementing the UNCRC is subject to regular review by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. However, ensuring compliance with the international standards is often not the core focus for states in designing and developing their youth justice systems. A range of other concerns, such as the protection of victims and society, ensuring accountability for wrongdoing, the prevention of further offending, and sometimes, a recognition that there may be a need to address the underlying causes of offending through a focus on children’s needs, may take priority over considerations relating to children’s rights. Historically, youth justice systems have either been characterised as ‘welfare’-based systems – because they focus on addressing any unmet needs children may have as a means of responding to offending – or ‘justice’-based systems – which focus on ensuring accountability and punishing offenders through traditional criminal justice mechanisms (Smith, D.J., 2005; Smith, R., 2005). These distinct approaches can be said to represent different ‘models’ of youth justice, and have often been presented as being at opposite ends of the spectrum. In practice youth justice systems are much more complex than this welfare/justice dichotomy indicates (Case and Haines, 2018; see further Phoenix, 2016; Muncie, 2008), and tend to mix a range of priorities including ‘welfare; justice; informalism; rights; responsibilities; restoration; prevention; remoralisation and retribution/punishment’ (Goldson and Muncie, 2006: 91). Equally, debates about the appropriate approach to adopt to youth justice can become policitised, and these political considerations can overshadow the search for a principled and coherent approach to responding to children in conflict with the law (Case and Hampson, 2019). The way that these priorities are balanced within a particular youth justice system can give rise to very different results; this has resulted, for example, in very different priorities being evident in each of the youth justice systems across the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom (Muncie, 2011). Given the complexity of these systems, and the range of ideological, practical and political priorities which are evident, the question becomes which of these models of youth justice is best suited to ensuring that a state is also fulfilling its obligations to respect and ensure children’s rights as set out under the UNCRC? This Academic Insights paper discusses whether the international standards set out a preference for a ‘welfare’ or ‘justice’ approach to youth justice, and considers the elements which are necessary for states that are seeking to ensure that their approach to responding to children in conflict with the law meets with their international legal obligations as States Parties to the UNCRC (see further Forde, 2021). The paper will begin by considering what the international standards say about the approach to youth justice which should be preferred, suggesting five criteria for child rightscompliant youth justice systems. It will conclude by considering some of the challenges and opportunities for developing a youth justice system which respects and realises children’s rights.

Academic Insights 2022/05 . Manchester, UK: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2022. 16p.

By Ursula Kilkelly

Research in youth justice is vast and varied, meaning that those seeking to identify ‘good practice’ or ‘evidence’ must navigate multiple studies, large and small, from every jurisdiction and academic discipline. The scholarship has been produced using diverse methodologies and approaches, and although there is an increasing focus on policy impact and practitioner perspectives, its breadth and depth can make this vast literature difficult to access by those interested in an evidence-based approach. The aim of this paper is to identify, from the established research literature, the key messages relating to children who come into conflict with the law and their pathways into and out of the justice system. Building on previous research funded by the Irish Research Council (Kilkelly et al., 2021) and since updated in a work that seeks to align the scholarship with a children’s rights approach (Kilkelly et al., 2023), this paper identifies ten key messages that should inform an evidence-based approach to youth justice in any jurisdiction. ' Academic Insights 2023/09

Manchester,UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 18p.

By Linda Mussell, Jessica Evans

In early 2021, half of the youth detention centres in Ontario, Canada, were abruptly closed. We ask how this development can be understood in relation to broader explanations of youth detention closures in Canada, which cite the success of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and the best interests of youth, and the broader international context. Using a process tracing methodology to analyse existing data, we demonstrate that these closures had less to do with the interests of youth, and were primarily a cost-effective calculation. We demonstrate this by pointing to three key developments: (i) the transference of institutionalised carceral logics onto community service providers; (ii) an undermining of the principle of ‘relationship custody’; and (iii) a focus on high-capacity and high-security detention centres, over smaller, locally situated open detention centres

Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 2023.

By Mairéad Seymour

There is increasing recognition within the criminal justice system that strategies that engage individuals and encourage cooperation in the first instance may be more effective in promoting compliance with legal requirements than rigid, front-end enforcement approaches. One of the most recent examples is the ‘4 Es’ framework adopted as part of policing public health regulations introduced in England and Wales at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Based on guidance issued by the NPCC (National Police Chiefs Council) and the College of Policing in March 2020, the framework espoused engagement, explanation and encouragement as police strategies to promote public compliance, with enforcement utilised only as a measure of last resort. Aitkenhead et al.’s (2022) analysis of policing the pandemic from a public and police perspective, reports that the ‘4 Es’ approach helped to uphold police legitimacy while securing compliance with Covid-19 regulations and avoiding ‘any major breakdown in the relationship between the public and the police’ (p.7). In the youth justice domain, there has been a notable shift in England and Wales away from enforcement towards engagement in policy discourse and practice guidelines. The most recent case management guidance from the Youth Justice Board (YJB) emphasises that every effort should be taken to engage children to complete their order, with breach proceedings identified as a measure of last resort and initiated in exceptional circumstances (Youth Justice Board, 2022). The approach aligns with the YJB’s recently introduced central guiding principle of ‘Child First’ (Day, 2023; Youth Justice Board, 2021) and is in stark contrast to a decade or more earlier when the language of enforcement, in the form of mandatory warnings and breach proceedings, was embedded in policy discourse (Youth Justice Board, 2010). Offending statistics published by the YJB (2023) identify that ‘breach of statutory order’ has fallen by 89 per cent over the last ten years. While a multiplicity of factors are likely to underpin this figure, policy and practice shifts that emphasise support for compliance, rather than enforcement for non-compliance, provide at least partial explanation for the trend. There have been substantial reductions in new entrants to the youth justice system and in the number of children in custodial detention facilities over the last decade and beyond (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2023; Youth Justice Board, 2023). While the result is lower Youth Offending Service (YOS) caseloads, HM Inspectorate of Probation (2022) argues that the needs of children entering the youth justice system are increasingly complex and far-reaching with the Covid-19 pandemic further exacerbating their circumstances. Harris and Goodfellow (2022) reiterate the point, explaining that vulnerability and marginalisation among many children in or on the periphery of the justice system, has led to them being the most adversely impacted by the pandemic. They describe the pandemic for these children as ‘an additional trauma to an already extensive list’ (p.4). It is against the context of the above developments and circumstances that this paper explores theory, policy and practice in supporting children’s compliance on community-based court orders. It begins by considering the term ‘compliance’ as well as the mechanisms that underpin decisions to comply (or not). Thereafter, the focus turns to unpacking what compliance means in the context of children and young people on community supervision before exploring strategies that pro-actively support and encourage compliance and respond to their non-compliance in ways other than formal enforcement procedures

Academic Insights 2023/04. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation 2023. 16p.

A report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice provides a comprehensive review of conditions at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) — California’s state-run youth correctional system— and finds a return to its historically grievous conditions that isolate and traumatize youth.

The report finds:

• Youth live in a climate of fear: Violence and use-of-force rates have increased in nearly all DJJ facilities in recent years. Staff abet violence, reinforce racial and ethnic conflicts, and legitimize institutional gangs.

• Youths’ health suffers due to trauma and violence: A recent spike in attempted suicides and high rates of youth injuries raise concerns for youths’ safety in DJJ facilities

• Education and programs are rendered less effective by violence and prison-like setting: DJJ’s schools and programs fail to provide meaningful rehabilitative opportunities and leave youth subject to substantial time in locked cells.

• DJJ facilities are outdated and costly: DJJ’s aging and poorly-maintained facilities were built according to an archaic institutional design that is out of step with juvenile justice standards.

Remote, restrictive facilities keep families apart: Youth confined at DJJ are unable to maintain close bonds with family and community members due to restrictive policies and far distances from home.

DJJ fails to prepare youth for their release: Youth released from DJJ experience high rates of recidivism and low levels of employment or education after release as they struggle to adjust to life outside of a traumatic institution. This report includes accounts of youth who have experienced life at DJJ directly. Their insights contribute to the report’s findings, alongside information from interviews with family members and facility staff, research, and recent tours of DJJ correctional facilities.

San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2019. 102p.

By Grecia Reséndez and Maureen Washburn

California’s Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the state’s youth correctional system , is endangering youth by subjecting them to life-threatening drug overdoses and excessive use of force by staff. Meanwhile, youth must fend for themselves amid staff shortages and a lack of programming in a highly volatile and violent environment. DJJ will close on June 30, 2023, bringing an end to its long and troubled history. However, DJJ’s long-standing dysfunction coupled with poorly developed transitional plans are undermining this transition and placing youth at great risk. On September 30, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 823 requiring California's state youth prisons to close by June 2023 (State of CA, 2020). SB 823 ushers in a new era of localized juvenile justice that is founded on community-based services and incarceration alternatives. These alternatives allow youth to complete juvenile court sentences in their community instead of in state-run correctional facilities. They include intensive family interventions, case management with support services, reentry housing and employment services, and graduated transition from high security to low security facilities. Youth at DJJ and their families are facing an uncertain future. Community-based organizations serving our state’s most vulnerable youth, many of which operate at the county level, offer crucial guidance and financial resources to those impacted by DJJ. Yet the state is failing to fully collaborate with these organizations as part of the upcoming transition to a county-based system. By closing DJJ, California can adopt a behavioral health approach that focuses on community and family support. However, this realignment to local control raises many concerns. Can California leaders and county probation departments adopt a new and broader vision? Regrettably, many counties are replicating DJJ’s harmful practices at the local level, with an emphasis on locking youth in detention centers. Youth justice organizations have worked tirelessly to improve this process. These groups prepare support services for youth transitioning from DJJ to their home counties. They also advocate for humane alternatives to confinement. Unfortunately, DJJ lacks a clear transition plan and refuses to work with entities outside of the county probation system. This failure will leave hundreds of youth without needed support when DJJ closes. Until then, DJJ remains a hazardous place where the threat of violence and callous treatment is ever present. The approaching closure and a dwindling youth population are fostering complacency. State officials are focusing less attention on operations and show little concern for youth safety. Only continued vigorous independent oversight offers partial protection as conditions deteriorate.

San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2023. 15p.

By Jessica K. Heldman

In 2019, the Governor of California vowed to fundamentally transform the state’s youth justice system. The legislature endorsed this commitment by enacting SB 823, which began a phased closure of state-run youth prisons in 2021. California is not the first state—nor will it be the last—to close facilities in light of decreased youth crime and greater awareness of the harms associated with incarceration. Although a welcomed development, the closure of youth prisons should not be viewed as the culmination of reform; rather, it is only the beginning. To achieve far more impactful change, state and local jurisdictions must confront the long-standing punitive culture within youth justice systems that persists both inside and outside the walls of youth prisons. This Article argues that the science of adolescent development embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court and the substantial evidence regarding what works to prevent youth reoffending provides states with the tools to transform the culture of youth justice. A proposed legislative agenda includes updating statutory purpose clauses and enacting statewide policies rooted in the lessons of history and the findings of contemporary research. With the novel concerns raised by a global pandemic and a renewed focus on racial injustice, this is an opportune time for California and other states to revisit and rebuild their systems to ensure they promote the well-being and safety of all children and their communities.

Lewis & Clark Law Review Volume 26 2022 Number

By Maureen Washburn | Renee Menart

California's youth correctional institutions are failing young people and their communities. The system--currently known as the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)--exposes youth to a violent, prison-like environment that should shock the consciences of California lawmakers, advocates, and residents. Since the 1890s, the state's youth correctional institutions have undergone numerous reorganizations, name changes, and renovations in a futile attempt to improve the treatment of youth under state care. Yet for as long as youth have been confined in California, the state has cycled continuously between reform and scandal, unable to overcome the cruel realities of its youth correctional model (Macallair, 2015). Young people, their families, and even staff describe DJJ as dangerous and ineffective--a finding that is supported by the agency's own statistics (CJCJ, 2019). Despite per capita expenditures of more than $300,000 per year, most youth return to the justice system within three years of their release from DJJ, a clear indicator of the state's failure to prepare young people for their transition back into the community (CDCR, 2019; CJCJ, 2020a). This research finds: (1) Fights, riots, and beatings are a part of daily life at DJJ; (2) Staff routinely use pepper spray, batons, and rubber bullets as methods of control; (3) Many youth contemplate or attempt suicide during their confinement; and (4) Young people are commonly placed more than 100 miles from their homes and loved ones. In early 2019, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) released "Unmet Promises: Continued Violence and Neglect in California's Division of Juvenile Justice," which uncovered appalling conditions and an overall climate of fear at DJJ (CJCJ, 2019). This publication is a companion to "Unmet Promises," offering a brief update on current conditions and outlining a set of policy recommendations that spring from CJCJ's years of research on youth confinement in California. This report also presents four key policy recommendations to address this historic failure. These are presented chronologically, beginning with those that offer immediate protections to youth in the facilities, followed by recommendations aimed at building up alternatives in local communities, and concluding with a proposal to close DJJ in favor of small, close-to-home programs and facilities.

San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2020. 24p.

By M e g h a n R . O g l e

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, in partnership with Stoneleigh Foundation, presents, “Advancing Racial Equity in Pennsylvania’s Youth Legal System.” Authored by Stoneleigh Emerging Leader, Dr. Meghan Ogle, this report details the work of seven county-based teams (representing Allegheny, Chester, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Philadelphia, and York Counties) and one state-based team in Pennsylvania who participated in CJJR’s Advancing Racial Equity and Justice in Youth Legal Systems Certificate Program in September of 2021. After engaging in the weeklong Certificate Program in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, these multi-disciplinary teams of youth legal system officials and partners developed Capstone Projects designed to advance racial equity and reduce disparities faced by youth of color involved in the youth legal system. This report details the Capstone Projects developed by each of the teams, baseline data analyzed, implementation progress, and initial outcome measures. It also highlights lessons learned in the process, including common challenges faced by the participating sites, as well as promising strategies.

Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform Georgetown University, 2023. 37p.

By Andrea R. Coleman

This bulletin discusses common misconceptions surrounding expungement. It also provides information about the collateral consequences of juvenile records as well as federal, state, and local emerging practices. The key information and findings include the following: • Expungement, sealing, and confidentiality are three legally distinct methods for destroying or limiting access to juvenile records. However, these methods may permit police, courts, or the public access to juvenile records, depending on state laws. • The public and impacted youth often erroneously believe that once police and courts expunge juvenile records they no longer exist. The handling of expunged juvenile records varies widely from state to state. • Youth with juvenile records frequently experience collateral consequences of their arrest or adjudication, which may include difficulty accessing educational services, obtaining employment, serving in the military, and finding and maintaining housing. • States, localities, and the federal government have implemented promising practices to decrease collateral consequences, including “ban the box” legislation and expungement clinics (Avery and Hernandez, 2018; Radice, 2017; Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014; Shah and Strout, 2016).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2020. 12p.

By Tirion Havard

This briefing focuses on serious youth violence within the context of organised crime groups involved in county lines drug dealing. The Government has made “rolling up county lines” a priority for the police in recent years. What is county lines drug dealing? County lines drug dealing describes organised crime groups (OCGs) who supply drugs to suburban areas including market and coastal towns. County lines drug dealers use dedicated mobile phones or “deal lines” to assist in the transport of drugs. This type of drug dealing is strongly associated with the coercion of children and vulnerable people. The dealers uses children and vulnerable people to move drugs, money and sometimes weapons between their hometown and the costal and market towns they are dealing in. In 2020 the NCA said exploitation in county lines drug dealing was “the most frequently identified form of coerced criminality, with children representing the vast majority of victims”. In 2021 they said that “at least 14.5%” of modern slavery referrals were related to county lines activity. The NCA says “violence at street level is often linked to drugs supply” and “continues to be associated” with county lines drug dealing. The Government has concluded that “changes to the drugs market, like the (emergence of the) county lines model of exploitation, is partly fuelling” serious violence.

London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2022/ 27p.

By Amber Farn and Michael Umpierre

Authored in partnership with the Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators (CJJA) and with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew), this publication provides an overview of research related to length of stay and lessons learned from the Length of Stay Policy Academy hosted by CJJR and CJJA in 2020 with support from Pew. The report features length of stay efforts from the jurisdictions that participated in the Academy, including Bexar County, Texas; Idaho; Maryland; New York City, New York; and Oklahoma, as well as other states that have led related initiatives such as Arkansas, Illinois, and Utah. Policymakers.

Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, 2023. 33p.

By HM Inspectorate of Probation (UK)

The use of out-of-court disposals (OOCDs) with young people who break the law is increasing. One OOCD is a community resolution (CR) which allows the police to deal with less serious offences in an informal way, providing a diversionary approach without formal court proceedings. This can allow young people to avoid having a criminal conviction on their record, give victims the opportunity to have their say, and provide a more efficient resolution than pursuing a criminal conviction. Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) perform a key role in the delivery of CRs, yet there remains a significant gap in knowledge about how CRs are delivered with young people. This bulletin focuses on findings from research which explored how youth offending services implement and deliver CRs in England and Wales, documenting working practices as well as key enablers and barriers to effective practice.

Research & Analysis Bulletin 2023/01 . Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 40p.

By Katie Hunter

This thesis is concerned with the overrepresentation of black and minority ethnic (BME) children and looked after children, in the youth justice system in general and the secure state in particular, in England and Wales. In the period 1993 to 2008, youth justice was characterised by a process of extensive penal expansion. Since 2008, however, the child prison population has fallen dramatically. The decline has been linked to pragmatic cost reduction as well as an increase in diversionary measures which keep children out of the system altogether. However, BME children and looked after children have not benefited from this decline to the same extent as white children and non-looked after children. The contraction in the system has served to intensify existing inequalities. This thesis interrogates the nature and extent of the overrepresentation of these groups. It employs a mixed-methods approach which involves analyses of secondary data and in-depth interviews with 27 national youth justice and children’s services professionals. This thesis builds upon and extends previous research, it determines that BME children are criminalised through ‘institutional racialisation’ which operates on micro, meso and macro levels. The thesis signals policing as having a particularly powerful influence on the levels of BME children in the system. The weight of these findings lie precisely in the fact that they are so longstanding. …

Liverpool: University of Liverpool, 2019. 307p.

By the National Center for Juvenile Justice

The National Center for Juvenile Justice has released "Juvenile Court Statistics 2020." This report describes delinquency and status offense cases handled between 2005 and 2020 by U.S. courts with jurisdiction over juvenile populations. National estimates are presented on 508,400 delinquency cases and 57,700 petitioned status offense cases handled in 2020. The report also tracks caseload trends from 2005 to 2020. Data include case counts and rates, juvenile demographics, and offenses charged. This report draws on data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, funded by the National Institute of Justice with support from OJJDP.

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2023. 114p.

By Richard Mendel

As The Sentencing Project documented in Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review of the Evidence, compelling research proves that incarceration is not necessary or effective in the vast majority of delinquency cases. Rather, incarceration most often increases young people’s likelihood of returning to the justice system. Incarceration also damages young people’s future success in education and employment. Further, it exposes young people, many of whom are already traumatized, to abuse, and it contradicts the clear lessons of adolescent development research. These harms of incarceration are inflicted disproportionately on Black youth and other youth of color. Reversing America’s continuing overreliance on incarceration will require two sets of complementary reforms. First, it will require far greater use of effective alternative-to-incarceration programs for youth who have committed serious offenses and might otherwise face incarceration. Second, it will require extensive reforms to state and local youth justice systems, most of which continue to employ problematic policies and practices that can undermine the success of alternative programs and often lead to incarceration of youth who pose minimal risk to public safety. This report addresses the first challenge: What kinds of interventions can youth justice systems offer in lieu of incarceration for youth who pose a significant risk to public safety?1 Specifically, it identifies six program models that consistently produce better results than incarceration, and it details the essential characteristics required for any alternative-to-incarceration program – including homegrown programs developed by local justice system leaders and community partners – to reduce young people’s likelihood of reoffending and steer them to success.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 33p.

By Eleno Castro and Randy Kotti

Despite the growing body of qualitative evidence suggesting collusion between gangs and political parties in various parts of the world, little has been done to study quantitatively the extent to which criminal organization may affect political elections in such context. Using police data and voting results in El Salvador, we find that homicides in gang-controlled neighborhoods tend to decrease by 24 percent of the mean during electoral seasons. We also estimate that gang control is associated with a 2.75 percentage point increase in electoral participation. These effects are especially significant in the neighborhoods where political parties have a strong voting base. Consistent with the interviews we conducted, this suggests that parties negotiate with gangs to mobilize electoral participation in the areas where they are more likely to receive electoral support and thus increase their chances of winning. To conduct our analysis, we geolocated the homicides reported daily in the registry of the National Civil Police from 2005 to 2019 crossed with electoral results reported at the voting-center level across El Salvador. We exploit the sudden and exogenous decrease in criminality resulting from the 2012 truce between the government and the two main gangs in El Salvador to identify gang-controlled neighborhoods. We also use penitentiary data from the General Directorate of Prisons for robustness measures. 

Pre-publication, 2022. 51p.

By Nikita Melnikov, Carlos Schmidt-Padilla, and Maria Micaela Sviatschi   

We study how territorial control by criminal organizations affects economic development. We exploit a natural experiment in El Salvador, where the emergence of these criminal organizations was the consequence of an exogenous shift in American immigration policy that led to the deportation of gang leaders from the United States to El Salvador. Upon arrival, the gangs gained control over many urban areas and re-created a system of borders to protect their territory from outsiders. Using a spatial regression discontinuity design, we find that individuals in gang-controlled neighborhoods have less material well-being, income, and education than individuals living only 50 meters away but outside of gang territory. None of these discontinuities existed before the arrival of the gangs. A key mechanism behind the results is that gangs restrict individuals’ mobility, affecting their labor market options by preventing them from commuting to other parts of the city. The results are not determined by high rates of selective migration, differential exposure to extortion and violence, or differences in public goods provision.     

  NBER Working Paper No. 27832  

Cambridge, MA:; National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022. 123p.

By Christian Dustmann, Mikkel Mertz and Anna Okatenko 

The effects of neighbourhood characteristics on the development of children and adolescents is a key area of research in the social sciences literature. Early papers such as Brooks-Gunn et al. (1993) document strong associations between children’s outcomes and the characteristics of the neighbourhoods they live in. More recent work finds evidence that the neighbourhood children grow up in a↵ects their earnings, college attendance, marriage, fertility (Chetty et al., 2016; Chetty and Hendren, 2018a,b; Chyn, 2018; Deutscher, 2020), and school performance (˚Aslund et al., 2011; Galster et al., 2016). One particular concern is the e↵ect of neighbourhood characteristics on adolescents’ criminal, delinquent, and health-compromising activities (for a review, see Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2000)), in particular the potential negative impacts of gangs, drugs and violence on children and young teenagers (Jencks and Mayer, 1990; Popkin et al., 2002). A small literature investigates the impact of exposure to crime on the criminal behaviour of young men and women, but little is known about which type of criminal activity in the neighbourhood may lead to spillovers, how this compares with the impact other neighbourhood characteristics have on later outcomes, how exposure to crime affects other dimensions of risky behaviour in particular for girls, and what the longer-term economic consequences of exposure to crime for males and females are….

Bonn: IZA  Institute of Labor Economics .2023. 76p.

By Craig Haney ;· Frank R. Baumgartner; · Karen Steele3   

In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the US Supreme Court raised the minimum age at which someone could be subjected to capital punishment, ruling that no one under the age of 18 at the time of their crime could be sentenced to death. The present article discusses the legal context and rationale by which the Court established the current age-based limit on death penalty eligibility as well as the scientific basis for a recent American Psychological Association Resolution that recommended extending that limit to include members of the “late adolescent class” (i.e., persons from 18 to 20 years old). In addition, we present new data that address the little-discussed but important racial/ethnic implications of these age-based limits to capital punishment, both for the already established Roper exclusion and the APA-proposed exclusion for the late adolescent class. In fact, a much higher percentage of persons in the late adolescent class who were sentenced to death in the post-Roper era were non-White, suggesting that their age-based exclusion would help to remedy this problematic pattern. 

 Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology (2022) 8:168–177